2015 (8) TMI 1360 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/07-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 - denial on the ground that the conditions provided therein, read with C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 6/2008-Cus., dated 28-4-2008 and No. 16/2008-Cus., dated 13-10-2008 have not been complied with by the appellant, inasmuch as, the description of imported goods indicated in the Bills of Entry are not the same as shown in the sales invoice. Held that - it is evident from the retail invoices that the goods imported on payment of SAD amount have been sold in the domestic market by the appellant - Since, the conditions laid down in the above referred notification and circulars for claiming the refund have been duly complied with by the appellant, in my considered opinion, the mere change in the description of the goods in the domestic retail invoice which may be due to various reasons, cannot be a defensible ground to deny the benefit of refund to which the appellant is legally entitled to - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) denied due to mismatch in goods description between Bills of Entry and sales invoices.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the denial of a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi. The denial was based on the mismatch between the description of imported goods in the Bills of Entry and the sales invoices. The appellant claimed that all conditions under Notification No. 102/07-Cus. had been met, and the goods were sold in the domestic market with appropriate taxes paid. The advocate argued that a slight discrepancy in descriptions should not bar the refund, citing a Tribunal decision supporting this view.

The Revenue, represented by the ld. DR, reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the appellant's burden to prove the non-recovery of SAD amount.

Upon review, the Member (J) found that while the conditions of the notifications were met, the mismatch in goods descriptions was the sole reason for the denial. The Bills of Entry had detailed descriptions for customs valuation, while sales invoices used simpler terms for trade purposes. The retail invoices referenced the Bills of Entry, stated the non-availability of customs duty credit, and clearly mentioned the applicable taxes. The Member (J) concluded that the refund should not be denied solely due to a change in goods description in domestic invoices, especially when all other requirements were fulfilled. Citing a previous Tribunal decision for support, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order in favor of the appellant.